Andhra Pradesh HC in the case of M/s. OSTRO Anantapura Private Limited

Case Covered:

M/s. OSTRO Anantapura Private Limited

Facts of the Case:

The petitioner’s case is thus:

a) The petitioner is M/s. OSTRO Anantapura Private Limited, Anantapuram, and a Company engaged in the business of generation and sale of wind power. The petitioner is a registered dealer under the A.P. VAT Act, 2005 vide TIN No.37828843491.

b) The petitioner during the relevant period purchased certain goods which are in the nature of wind power equipment and accessories which were used for setting up and operation of the wind power plant. The total value of the equipment is Rs.62,40,13,181/-.

c) Subsequently, during the month of May 2018, the operations of the Company were shifted from the premises at Dwaraka Villas, Kalyandurg Road to the present premises at Kovur Nagar, and the change of address was intimated to the GST Department vide application dated 01.02.2019 on the portal for registration of Kovur Nagar premises. The amended registration certificate was also issued to the petitioner on 15.05.2019.

d) While so, despite acknowledging the change in the address of the petitioner, the 2nd respondent issued notices dated 21.01.2019, 20.11.2019, and 27.11.2019 to the former address of the petitioner calling for the books of accounts for verification for the relevant period. The 2nd respondent also proceeded to issue show cause notice dated 20.03.2020 and personal hearing notices dated 22.05.2020 and 30.06.2020 to the former address of the petitioner which was returned to the 2nd respondent by the postal authorities was acknowledged by the 2nd respondent in the impugned order itself.

e) Despite knowing that the notices were served to the petitioner, the 2nd respondent proceeded to issue the impugned assessment order confirming the demand of Rs.3,43,20,724/- to the present address of the petitioner. Since the impugned order was passed without serving pre-assessment show cause notice and personal hearing notice to the correct address of the petitioner, the petitioner had no opportunity to submit its case, and thereby the principles of natural justice were grossly violated.

f) The impugned order is unsustainable, also for the reason that the demand under the assessment order was barred by the limitation.

Observations:

Above all, the GST registration certificate of the petitioner shows that the address of the petitioner was changed with effect from 01.02.2019. So, for this reason, also, the petitioner cannot be said to be received the notices if they were sent to the old address.

Thus, on a conspectus, we are of the view that the petitioner did not receive any of the notices said to be sent by the 2nd respondent and therefore, they had no occasion to submit their explanation/objection. So also, they had no occasion to submit their case personally. Consequently, the principles of natural justice are violated in the instant case. Therefore, the impugned assessment order is liable to be set aside.

The Decision of the Court:

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned assessment order A.A.O.No.ZH370820OD66970 dated 19.08.2020 passed by the 2nd respondent is set aside and the 2nd respondent is directed to permit the petitioner to submit its records and documents in support of its case and consider them and after affording the personal hearing to the petitioner, pass assessment order afresh in accordance with the governing law and rules expeditiously. There shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, interlocutory applications, if any, pending consideration shall stand closed.

Read & Download the full Decision in pdf: